Why Twitter Lists ARE NOT the New Ranking System in Social Media

I keep seeing this article about the importance of twitter lists getting retweeted, and I’m compelled to disagree.

Steven Hodson over at The Inquistr is making an argument that Lists are going to be the new ranking system in social media. He references an article at the Bivings Report about using twitter lists to judge influence, and then goes on to make some pretty bold blanket statements, like:

(a) “It is how you are now going to be able to measure your worth in the world from this day forth.Yes sir you can now measure your value by how many lists you have been lucky enough to find yourself on.”

(b) “Whether or not we get over being left out of other peoples lists doesn’t change the fact that Twitter Lists will become the new ranking system in Social Media. They will be the new measure of worth to a lot of people…..”

My response is that:

(a) no it isn’t.

(b) no it won’t.

My rationale:

Lists are a great TOOL for organizing information that’s important to you, and honing in to a particular topic or category. It makes using Twitter more efficient and effective.

It is NOT “the new ranking system in social media”. Being on a bunch of lists is the same as having a bunch of followers – it’s just another echo chamber. Yes, in some cases it’s helping to separate the wheat from the chaff as far as using the wisdom of crowds to see who matters. But it’s not a guarantee at all that being on lots of lists = being more important.

Being on lists doesn’t indicate a value system, it’s just a number.

The real new ranking system is going to emerge when there’s a way to track and measure your social and human capital. Let me see that graphic, that shows me what you’ve actually done, what value you’ve added, and who you’ve mobilized for success because of your work or influence or feedback. Then I’ll get a little more excited than seeing how many lists you’re on.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve discovered SO many interesting, intelligent people with great topical tweets through Lists. And if you look at who’s on the lists of the more influential people out there (Tim O’Reilly, Robert Scoble, Danny Sullivan, etc), you’ll see a lot of overlap – so in that sense, I think lists are an interesting way to see who we deem as “experts” today.

But like you said, people will figure out how to game Lists, and as marketers start chasing lists to be added to, the relationship between being listed and having value is going to have less relevance, and being on lots of lists will be like having lots of followers.

I still think the metrics are not available to get a good read on an individual/company’s value, but as @nikiblack pointed out to me, at least it’s a way to see what people think of you.

Your stance on this makes sense to me, and I’m inclined to agree with you. There IS no end-all ranking system for social media, as the odd proliferation of DEFINITIVE top-25 (or top-50, or top-100) Most Influential blah de blah Lists makes clear.

I would like to point out that there is a real heavy dose of sarcasm in that post. Personally if I was to utilize the list feature it would be to create lists of smart and intelligent people in the various areas of my interests.

That doesn’t change the fact that these Lists are going to become some sort of ranking system within Twitter that people will use to flaunt their position. One only has to look at the pimping that Mashable has been doing to get on as many lists as possible.

I think this kind of use of what could be a good feature will cheapen it and water down its value in the long run. Not for everybody because there are those that will use it in such a way that will benefit them but on the whole – it will become a cheapened ranking system.

Agreed Steven – they will use it to flaunt, and then it’ll get cheapened. I’ll publicly apologize if my post came off as sarcasm. I felt that a statement like “It is how you are now going to be able to measure your worth in the world from this day forth.” was pretty expansive for a feature that won’t take long to just be another echo chamber.

No need to apologize good lady I find sometimes that my tendency of subtleness often comes back to bite me on the ass. Your points are more than valid. I just maybe have a more jaded opinion of human nature than most. come from being a cranky old fart I guess 🙂

– the lists I create enable me to follow more than the initial 100 people I carefully picked by categorizing them. By the way, all the people I follow are in one of my lists… I don’t follow useless people 😉

– lists other people I trust create are also usefull to me (when they are not a random cluster of “300 great people to follow”) because I can spot new experts or interesting people to follow myself (and add to my own catagorized lists)

I am also glad if the lists I create with carefully picked people are usefull to others.

However I don’t see at all why lists should become a new global ranking system for social media:
People have managed to get followed by 100000 people so they will manage to be listed by 10000 lists… Seems obvious to me!
If ‘number of followers’ is a releveant ranking system, then ‘number of listings’ is also relevant. (https://emergentbydesign.com/2009/11/10/how-is-social-media-influence-really-measured-pic/)
But that is not what I call a NEW ranking system, just the same ranking system starting again from scratch.

Now I have written all that I realise that I haven’t brought in any new idea… just said the same things as you differently!

Anyway, I also wanted to tell you to keep up the posting on twitter and your blog. You are doing a great job on both.

I’ve actually learned a lot about how to more effectively use lists just in the past week since writing this post. I’m still working on refining the system I use, but I think the list feature should be a tool, not a popularity contest.

I’d like to rely on other people’s lists for general news, and then really focus my personal lists by topic. My “Futurists” list is the one I pay most attention to, but as it continues to grow, I may have to break it up into Professional Futurists, Trendtracking, and “Metacogs” (which to me means people specifically interested in thinking about thinking: understanding the process of developing creativity, strategic thinking, and learning in general). Those are my main categories of interest, as all other topics out there seem to fall within them.

Oh, and also a general ‘Big Thinkers’ list, for all those TEDster/visionary types, and an Inspiration list of spiritual leaders and those that are interested in the metaphysical. I think that’s an important aspect to pay attention to in order to keep the balance of mind/body/spirit.